No, certainly not! world-honoured one! it is not possible to obtain a view of Tathágata by the medium of any bodily distinction or quality whatever. What then? That which Tathágata speaks of as a quality of the body, is after all a quality of that which is no real body (and therefore itself unreal). Buddha said: Subhúti, all that which has qualities or distinctions, all this is empty and unreal; but if a man beholds all these qualities as indeed no qualities, then he can at once behold Tathágata. _Cap. VI.—The precious character of true faith._ Subhúti now addressed Buddha thus: World-honoured one! with reference to the mass of sentient beings who may hereafter be privileged to hear the words contained in the former sections: will these words produce in them a true faith? Buddha said: Subhúti, speak not after this manner. (For) after the Nirváṅa of Tathágata, though five hundred years be elapsed, should there be one who, by keeping the moral precepts, prepares himself for the happiness consequent on such conduct, that man no doubt by these former sections of my doctrine will be able to arrive at a true faith. Supposing such a man to have truly arrived at this condition, you should know that the seeds of virtue which have been sown in his mind were implanted not by one Buddha, or even two or three, or four or five, but having these seeds of virtue sown within him by the teaching of countless thousands of Buddhas, and then hearing these sections, reflecting but a moment, the true faith dawns on his heart. Subhúti! Tathágata knows entirely, and entirely perceives, that all this mass of sentient beings shall obtain (in the manner I have described) immeasurable felicity. And why so? but because they will thus be freed from all selfish distinctions and worldly desires, and distinctions as perishable beings, and distinctions as finite beings; they will have no distinction either as beings possessed of mental organization, nor as beings without such an organization. What then? All this mass of sentient existences, if their heart be possessed of any such distinction, they immediately place their dependence on some object agreeable to this distinction; or, if they be possessed of any such mental distinction, what is this but coming under the same necessity? And more than this, if they take hold of the fact of their having no distinction as a mentally-constituted being, they then also bring themselves under the same necessity of dependence. So (it is the case that) we should neither rely on anything real or unreal (literally, on that which is a law or on that which is not a law). Tathágata has ever spoken thus: “Ye Bhikshus, know ye well that my law is as it were but a raft to help you across the stream. The law, then, must be forsaken; how much more that which is no law!” _Cap. VII.—The state of perfection cannot be said to be obtained, nor can it be described by words._